{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53","title":"Bodies in code  interfaces with digital media","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"0415970164","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53","id":"4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53","uuid":"4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53","title":"Bodies in code  interfaces with digital media","normalized_title":"bodiesincodeinterfaceswithdigitalmedia","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"0415970164","isbns":["0415970164","0415970156","9780415970167","9780415970150"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":348,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Bodies%20in%20code%20%20interfaces%20with%20digital%20media","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53/search"},"page":{"printed_page":196,"pdf_page":209,"physical_index":209,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"b8bd4dd822678a7334e61b477600aa6ac66ae6e9915371f9a222356beee6b6a8"},"chapter":"bodies in code","content":"At stake in this “third step” is nothing less than the difference between a formal operation like folding and an interstitial process like spacing. As Eisenman sees it, the machinic perspective of his younger colleagues is insufficient on two, closely related counts: it only deals with the idea of becoming “as a state of the object” and it “does not differentiate between forming and spacing\" (21). Because it leaves the traditional subordination of spacing to forming undisturbed, the machinic process is unable to disturb the traditional embodiment of architecture.\n\nBy contrast, precisely because it “remains untheorized” and without pregiven “value systems,\" spacing holds the potential to (re)embody architecture differently:\n\nIn the context of architecture, spacing ... begins to suggest a possible figure/figure relationship which in turn suggests a new possibility for the interstitial. Spacing produces an other condition of the interstitial. The interstitial proposes a dissonant space of meaning. Where figure/ground was an abstraction, figure/figure is a figural condition that is no longer necessarily abstract. It is a space as a matrix of forces and sense. It is affective in that it requires the body ... for its understanding. The interstitial, then, is the result of a process of extraction which produces a figural as opposed to a formal trope, and it exists as a condition of spacing as opposed to forming, as a presence in an absence, that is between two conditions of figure as opposed to figure and ground. (32)\n\nDerived from Deleuze's concept of the figural,vii Eisenman's conception of spacing transforms the problematic of motivatedness from a restrictive into an enabling constraint, thereby transfiguring the experiential horizon of architecture. As the means of liberating architecture from the task of discovering a figure in the ground, form in the preformed, spacing exposes the forces inhabiting spatial forms and opens them up to an alternate processing by the body—to the bodily conversion into affect that, extending Gil's analysis, we have theorized as the labor of infratactility.\n\nThe process of spacing speaks to the singularity of architecture as the quintessential art of framing for our time. Rather than catalyzing the production of an affective space in the body, as the most interesting digital art (arguably) does,viii digitally generated architecture marshals the spatializing capacity of the affective body toward the constitution of new kinds of spaces—interstitial spaces. Eisenman's conception of spacing thus amounts to a plea to conceive architecture as a machine for producing longitudinal experience in the sense defined previously. As a recipe for reconfiguring architectural interiority, spacing functions precisely by soliciting an affective embodiment that exceeds the spatial bounds of the organic body. It thus deploys the longitudinal dimension as a means to access the space “in-between\" empirical space and bodily imaging potential. In sum, spacing enlists the longitudinal dimension of the affective body in the larger process through which architecture is constituted, coupling it to a longitudinal dimension of space from which it is inseparable.\n\nBODIES IN CODE\n\n196","previous_page":195,"next_page":197}